Archives for the month of: August, 2012

This letter from a veteran teacher should be read and discussed in every TFA institute, during the five weeks of training. Corps members should take a pledge never to take a job away from a well-qualified, experienced teacher who was laid off to save money and to hire TFA:

All I ever wanted from teaching was to do good work, excite children and really teach them. And I have done that. Always trying to do it better, always assessing and reworking what I do. I’ve been proud of my contribution to the children in my community, but I realize now that it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter that I work until late every night or that I’ve had a high standard (Common Core is no big stretch for me). Or that I’m passionate about what I do. None of that will matter because if parent triggers gain traction, my school could get taken over by 51% of the public. And if that happens, it won’t matter how good a job I’ve done. All that will matter is that I’m expensive. With 21 years of public ed experience, a charter could hire two teachers for the price of hiring me. That lowers class size or increases profits. Either way, I will be terminated and will have to look for work in my 50s. It doesn’t matter who I vote for because the fix is in. Either party can cost me my livelihood even though I’ve done all the right things.

The only strategy I have left is to continue to do my job and try to educate people in my community. Oh… and stop spending money on anything at all. I need to save every penny I have because this may not work out well for me. I can’t contribute to the economy or believe in the future. All I can do is hang on, do good work and hope that I can make it till retirement. Not because I’m burnt out or no longer love teaching, but because someone can come in and steal my life’s work out from under me, and I’ve got my government’s approval no matter who wins the election.

Teachers speak up to refute claims of reformers.

The reformers assert  that unions are the root problem of American education because they protect bad teachers.

The answer: Get rid of unions so wise administrators or charter school operators can fire bad teachers.

One letter here says it is the job of administrators to deny tenure to bad teachers and to evaluate teachers.

Maybe our problem is weak or incompetent administrators, those people who came through faux leadership programs.

If unions were “the problem,” we would expect to find high performance in right to work states.

But we don’t.

On the NAEP, the highest performing states are Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey, all strong union states (up until now).

The lowest performing states do not permit collective bargaining.

Should we aspire to be like Massachusetts or Louisiana?

What do you think?

 

Bruce Baker offers his comments on the latest study of vouchers.

As usual for him, he raises provocative questions about what the study says and doesn’t explain at all.

 

The Texas Business and Education Council commissioned a major review of high-performing charter schools by Dr. Ed Fuller.

The question addressed by Fuller is whether the charters are enrolling the same kinds of students who enroll in nearby public schools.

The final conclusions included this summary:

 This study is a preliminary examination of high-profile/high-performing charter management organizations in Texas. Specifically, the study examined the characteristics of students entering the schools, retention/attrition rates; and,the impact of attrition/retention rates on the distribution of students.

Contrary to the profile often portrayed in the media, by some policymakers, and by some charter school proponents (including some charter CEOs), the high-profile/high-enrollment CMOs in Texas enrolled groups of students that would arguably be easier to teach and would be more likely to exhibit high levels of achievement and greater growth on state achievement tests. Indeed, the above analyses showed that, relative to comparison schools, CMOs had:

  • Entering students with greater prior TAKS scores in both mathematics and reading;
  • Entering economically disadvantaged students with substantially greater prior TAKS scores in both mathematics and reading;
  • Lower percentages of incoming students designated as ELL;
  • Lower percentages of incoming students identified as special needs; and,
  • Only slightly greater percentages of incoming students identified as economically disadvantaged.

In other words, rather than serving more disadvantaged students, the findings of this study suggest that the high-profile/high-enrollment CMOs actually served a more advantaged clientele relative to comparison schools—especially as compared to schools in the same zip code as the CMO schools. This is often referred to as the “skimming” of more advantaged students from other schools. While CMOs may not intentionally skim, the skimming of students may simply be an artifact of the policies and procedures surrounding entrance into these CMOs.

Thus, the comparisons that have been made between these CMOs and traditional public schools—especially traditional public schools in the same neighborhoods as the CMO schools—have been “apples-to-oranges” comparisons rather than “apples-to-apples” comparisons. The public and policymakers need to look past the percentages of economically disadvantaged students and disabuse themselves of the notion that enrolling a high percentage of economically disadvantaged students is the same as having a large percentage of lower-performing students. In fact, despite a large majority of students entering the CMOs identified as economically disadvantaged, students at the selected CMOs tended to have average or above average TAKS achievement and certainly greater achievement levels than comparison schools.

Paul Thomas of Furman University says that educators have no political party, because no political party today supports educators.

The Republican party is downright hostile to public education and to teachers.

Romney’s education agenda calls for privatization.

It is the most radical rightwing document of any major political party in my memory (and I have a long memory).

Romney would be a disaster for American public education, for the schools that enroll almost 90% of the nation’s children.

His agenda is not conservative, because he wants to destroy a cherished part of our American tradition: free public education.

His agenda is radical.

But what of the Democrats?

Thomas nails down the Obama-Duncan routine of good cop-bad cop as well as the double-speak surrounding Race to the Top.

When the public sector unions and public education were getting a thrashing in Wisconsin in the spring of 2011, neither Obama nor Duncan showed up. Instead, they went to Miami to join with uber-privatizer Jeb Bush to celebrate a school that allegedly had been turned around by firing the staff (no reporter bothered to follow up and notice that the school in question was still on a list to be closed because it remained one of the state’s lowest performing schools even after the staff was fired).

Obama and Duncan repeatedly echo Republican themes about education, pushing charter schools, merit pay, firing teachers and principals as a “reform” strategy, etc.

It’s telling that when Romney announced his agenda, the Obama camp responded by saying, “we are doing that already, just look how much Governor Chris Christie likes our education program.” Pathetic.

I know that Obama gave a speech the other day saying all the things he should have been saying and doing for the past four years (but hasn’t). Is the change real or just more “reformer” rhetoric?

We will see. Actions speak louder than words.

This parent writes about how he and his wife decided to enroll their children in an urban public school and to remain closely involved in their schooling and their lives. As black parents, they knew all the risks, and they decided not to move to the suburbs. As college graduates, they wanted the best for their children, and they made an informed choice.

As it happened, both kids got a good education, both went to top colleges, and both are on their way to good professional careers.

This is a testament to the power of informed parenting.

In the Scholastic-Gates survey of teachers, teachers were asked what they wanted most. The greatest number said they wanted families to be more involved. (What mattered least: longer school days and hours, merit pay).

This family showed what a difference it makes when families do their share–and more.

The Wall Street Journal has an odd article today trumpeting “A Generation of School Voucher Success” by voucher advocate Paul Peterson of Harvard and Matthew Chingos of the Brookings Institution.

The article is based on a study of a privately funded voucher program in New York City and its effects on college enrollments of those who received vouchers.

The study concluded that “Overall, no significant impacts are observed.”

However, there were statistically significant gains in the college enrollment rates of black students, and statistically insignificant gains for Hispanics.

Why the difference? It’s not clear, but consider what the study says about the two groups compared:

African American and Hispanic students differed from one another in a number of respects. Although students in the two ethnic groups had fairly similar baseline scores, African American students were more likely to be male, have a parent with a college education, come from one-child families (but are also more likely to come from families with four or more children), and, not surprisingly, come from a family in which English is spoken in the home. 

But overall, the study produced “no significant impacts.”

If you read the study, check out p. 12, “Results,” which begins:

“The offer of a voucher is estimated to have increased college enrollment within three years of the student’s expected graduation from high school by 0.6 percentage points—a tiny, insignificant impact

This somehow got spun in the WSJ article into “A generation of school voucher success!”

This study does not delve into test scores. One can only guess what the study would say if there were big test score gains.

The D.C. voucher program, the Cleveland voucher program and the Milwaukee voucher program have not produced any evidence of gains in test scores.

This is from the final evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program:

There is no conclusive evidence that the OSP affected student achievement. On average, after at least four years students who were offered (or used) scholarships had reading and math test scores that were statistically similar to those who were not offered scholarships (figure ES-2). The same pattern of results holds for students who applied from schools in need of improvement (SINI), the group Congress designated as the highest priority for the Program. Although some other subgroups of students appeared to have higher levels of reading achievement if they were offered or used a scholarship, those findings could be due to chance. They should be interpreted with caution since the results were no longer significant after applying a statistical test to account for multiple comparisons of treatment and control group members across the subgroups.

Voucher students in DC saw no test score gains, but were more likely to graduate from high school:

The graduation rate based on parent-provided information was 82 percent for the treatment group compared to 70 percent for the control group. 

Studies comparing voucher schools and public schools in Milwaukee and Cleveland have not detected any differences in test scores.

Earlier studies of the NYC private school voucher program showed no gains in test scores, which the study notes:

The original study of the New York City voucher experiment identified heterogeneous impacts. Although no overall impacts in reading and math achievement were detected, positive private-sector impacts were observed on the performance of African Americans, but not of Hispanic students (Howell and Peterson 2006, 146-52; Mayer et al. 2002, Table 20). 

When vouchers are celebrated, the subject of test scores is irrelevant. When public schools are condemned, the subject is always test scores. Truly, a double standard.

Wonder why.

Thanks to a reader who forwarded this fascinating and informative article about the situation in Chester Upland, Pennsylvania.

I posted previously about the Governor’s appointment of a “recovery officer” to help the district get back on its feet.

The Governor appointed a prominent advocate for vouchers and charters to a position that puts him in complete control of the district and its future. Ironically, the “recovery officer” has been a consultant to the charter school in the district that takes away 1/3 of the district’s stressed budget. The charter school is owned by the governor’s biggest campaign contributor. The charter school owner collects $16 million each year as a management fee.  So many interesting coincidences!

It seems likely that the district won’t get back on its feet. More likely there won’t be a district in the future.

This “recovery officer” law sounds an awful lot like the law permitting the governor in Michigan to appoint emergency financial managers. These EFMs arrive in financially troubled districts and decide that the cure was to close down public education and to hand the children over to for-profit charter chains. The most amazing one is Muskegon Heights, where the district has a $12 million deficit; the for-profit charter chain plans to extract a profit of $8.75 million to $11 million. And that’s just for starters.

Somehow all this seems to be aligned with the ALEC agenda of dismantling public education by fiat, the sooner the better.

It’s Chester Upland and Muskegon Heights today.

Who’s next?

This post was written by Richard Rothstein. Rothstein has written many important books and articles about education, including Class and Schools and Grading Education. Richard is a senior fellow at the Economic Policy Institute, where this piece is cross-posted.

We cannot remedy the large racial achievement gaps in American education if we continue to close our eyes to the continued racial segregation of schools, owing primarily to the continued segregation of our neighborhoods. We pretend that this segregation is nobody’s fault in particular (we call it “de facto” segregation), and that therefore there is nothing we can or should do about it. Instead, we think that somehow we can devise reform programs that will create separate but equal education. One after another of these programs has failed—more teacher accountability and charter schools being only the latest—but we persist.

          The presidential campaign can be a reminder, though, of the opportunities we’ve missed and continue to miss. Forty years ago, George Romney, Mitt’s father, resigned as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development after unsuccessfully attempting to force homogenous white middle-class suburbs to integrate by race. Secretary Romney withheld federal funds from suburbs that did not accept scatter-site public and subsidized low and moderate income housing and that did not repeal exclusionary zoning laws that prohibited multi-unit dwellings or modest single family homes—laws adopted with the barely disguised purpose of ensuring that suburbs would remain white and middle class.

Confronted at a press conference about his cabinet secretary’s actions, President Nixon undercut Romney, responding, “I believe that forced integration of the suburbs is not in the national interest.” This has since been unstated national policy and as a result, low-income African Americans remain concentrated in distressed urban neighborhoods and their children remain in what we mistakenly think are “failing schools.” Nationwide, African Americans remain residentially as isolated from whites as they were in 1950, and more isolated than in 1940.

In “The Cost of Living Apart,” an article in the September/October issue of The American Prospect, Mark Santow and I review George Romney’s crusade, and contrast his views with those of his son, this year’s Republican presidential candidate (http://prospect.org/article/cost-living-apart). Like most policymakers today from both political parties, Mitt Romney accepts the permanence of racial segregation. Instead, to address the problems of low-income urban youth, he has made a wildly impractical proposal to permit children from low-income families to transfer to public schools far from home in those lily-white suburbs that his father had confronted.

George Romney understood that there is little chance we can substantially narrow the achievement gap without breaking up heavy concentrations of low-income minority children in urban schools, giving these children opportunities to attend majority middle-class schools outside their “truly disadvantaged” neighborhoods. But urban children cannot have a practical opportunity to attend such middle-class schools unless their parents have the opportunity to live nearby.

The failure of George Romney’s efforts has resulted today in African-American children from low-income urban families still frequently suffering from health problems that lead to school absences; from frequent or sustained parental unemployment that provokes family crises; from rent or mortgage defaults causing household moves that entail changes of teachers and schools, with a resulting loss of instructional continuity; and from living in communities with high levels of crime and disorder, where schools spend more time on discipline and less on instruction and where stress interferes with academic achievement.

With school segregation continuing to increase, these children are often isolated from the positive peer influences of middle-class children who were regularly read to when young, whose homes are filled with books, whose adult environments include many college-educated professional role models, whose parents have greater educational experience and the motivation such experience brings and who have the time, confidence, and ability to monitor schools for academic standards.

Although his integration efforts were suppressed by President Nixon, George Romney was not an isolated figure. Although his passion was unusual, his views on racial integration were shared by many national leaders, Republican and Democrat alike. It is hard for many of us today, unfamiliar with how far this nation has regressed in terms of integration, to imagine that, for example, Vice President Spiro Agnew lectured the National Alliance of Businessmen that he flatly rejected the assumption that “because the primary problems of race and poverty are found in the ghettos of urban America, the solutions to these problems must also be found there… Resources needed to solve the urban poverty problem – land, money, and jobs – exist in substantial supply in suburban areas, but are not being sufficiently utilized in solving inner-city problems.” Nixon’s domestic policy coordinator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, contemptuously called it “gilding the ghetto” to try to ameliorate inequality simply by pouring money into urban programs: “efforts to improve the conditions of life in the present caste-created slums must never take precedence over efforts to enable the slum population to disperse throughout the metropolitan areas involved.” A commission headed by former Illinois Gov. Otto Kerner, formed after riots in over 100 cities in 1967, called for a crash program for the federal government to construct or subsidize six million units of low and moderate income housing, intended primarily for black urban families, in middle-class white suburbs. George Romney adopted this goal as HUD Secretary, but he could never begin to fulfill it.

Today, Democrats and Republicans alike unashamedly promote efforts to “gild the ghetto” with charter schools that are more segregated than regular public schools, and with compensatory education programs that have little chance of truly compensating. But the black-white academic achievement gap is unlikely to narrow much further without revisiting the imperative of residential integration in our metropolitan areas. Integration alone won’t close the gap, but without integration, other programs will continue to be frustrated.

Here is the full report on which the Santow-Rothstein American Prospect article is based, with sources for those interested in pursuing these issues: http://www.epi.org/publication/educational-inequality-racial-segregation-significance/

Joanne Yatvin is an experienced teacher, principal, superintendent, literacy expert, author, and former president of the National Council of Teachers of English. She wrote the following post for this blog:

Since we are deep into the era of school reform, I’d like to offer my own plan for reforming America’s schools.  Although I am not an official expert in the eyes of the federal Department of Education or the National Governors Association, I have better credentials* than most of the people so recognized, plus a lot of experience running successful public schools. 

If I had to propose a simple solution, I’d say let’s follow Finland all the way.  All their schools are free and public; school lunches are also free; there are no national tests; free pre-schools; regular schooling beginning at age seven; and teaching is a highly respected profession.  Unfortunately, however, not all those things would work in America because Finland has a much lower poverty rate than we do, a homogeneous population, and a language that is much easier to read than English.

So, I will get more complicated, but never so much as the various reform ideas being proposed or implemented now.

  1. Limit the Federal role in education to the administration of congressionally authorized grant programs that help schools provide needed services to poor, disadvantaged, and disabled students.
  1. Limit the state role to distributing tax funds to public schools, licensing teachers, providing student bussing where necessary, offering grants to schools with innovative programs, and providing special services, such as a school psychologist, where needed. 
  1.  Re-design formulas for state funding to include additional amounts for schools with large numbers of students living in poverty and students identified as disabled. 
  1. Reconstitute all public schools as charter schools, free to design and implement their own curricula, hire and evaluate teachers, select teaching materials, and determine their own class sizes, daily schedules, and number of annual school days.

        5.  No for-profit school may call itself a charter school or receive public funds.

         6.  Authorize at least thirty-three per cent of charter schools as magnet schools focusing on specialization in a particular field, such as science, the arts, or vocational training.

  1. Students shall attend the schools in their own community unless they wish to apply to attend a magnet school

        8. Allow each school faculty to select its own principal and administrative support team.  In addition, each school would allow parent observations in classrooms and encourage parent involvement in special projects.

  1.  Require each school to have its own citizen governing board elected from the local community. Each board would hold open meetings and respond to citizen input, and each board member would be required to spend at least ten days a year observing or assisting in classrooms
  1. Each school would be accountable to its board for the use of public funds, the effectiveness of its curriculum and methods, the quality of its teachers, and the success of its students.  The means of demonstrating such accountability would be determined jointly by the school and its board.
  2.  Each school bargains with its board on matters of salary and benefits or it may join with other schools to form a union chapter for this purpose. 

As I wrote my specifications for education reform, many exceptions, fine points, and dangers occurred to me, but adding them in would have made the structure too complicated and too susceptible to other problems.  In the end, I decided that I would have to have faith in the good intentions and good sense of all the parties involved and leave the whole system open to change.  Of one thing I am certain: the system I am proposing would be more flexible, democratic, and sensible than the top-down one we have now with all its misinterpretation of student needs and capabilities, scapegoating of teachers, and preferences for profiteering in materials publishing, consulting, and charter school operation.

——Joanne Yatvin

 

 

 

  • For those who are interested, below are listed my qualifications to be a school reformer.
  • B.A. in English and Drama from Douglass College, N.J.
  • M.A. in English from Rutgers University, N.J.
  • Ph.D. in Curriculum Development and Applied Linguistics from the University of Wisconsin, Madison
  • Eighteen years as a teacher in eight schools, in two states and the territory of Puerto Rico, at almost all grade levels, K-12
  • Twenty-five years as public school principal; twelve of those as a superintendent/principal
  • Wisconsin Elementary Principal of the Year, 1985
  • Recipient of the University of Wisconsin School of Education Distinguished Alumni Award, 1988
  • Member of the National Reading Panel
  • Recipient of the Kenneth S. Goodman In Defense of Good Teaching Award, 2002
  • President of the National Council of Teachers of English, 2006-2007
  • Member of the College Board Commission to Write Standards for AP English Courses, 2008-2010
  • Adjunct Professor and supervisor of student teachers at Portland State University, OR, 2000—present
  • Author of three books for teachers, numerous book chapters, and more than 100 articles and letters published in journals and newspapers